How does Marian devotion save?

[Lycorth]

This was said to the Apostles, not your church.

It applies to both; the Apostles were the first members of the Church. He who hears Christ’s established messengers hears Him.

And it’s not my church but God’s Church.

I have not.

Sure.

I am not trying to win. I have not slandered your church or Mary. You said I said things which I did not. That, my friend is bearing false witness. In fact, it’s a 10 Commandment violation, and in Catholicism this registers as a “mortal” sin. It’s time you headed for the booth. You don’t want to die with that on our soul.

It’s always time to head for the booth, but you have done nothing but slander the Church and the Mother of God with your man-made and false opinions about them both. Your refusal to accept that does not invalidate it.

P.S. It is wrong to say things about Mary (or anyone) that are not true, even if they’re considered “good” things.

I agree, which is why I assent to the teaching of God’s Church on the matter.

 

[Fair_Lady]

How does Marian devotion save? It doesn’t. Not at all. I’m late in getting into this discussion and I haven’t read the whole thread, but it’s been interesting.

One question I would have is this - what deficiency could possibly be seen in the person and work of Jesus Christ that would cause one to look to Mary for any part of salvation?

 

[nuntym]

How does Marian devotion save? It doesn’t. Not at all. I’m late in getting into this discussion and I haven’t read the whole thread, but it’s been interesting.

One question I would have is this - what deficiency could possibly be seen in the person and work of Jesus Christ that would cause one to look to Mary for any part of salvation?

***Without exception ALL SALVATION is through Jesus Christ. The fact that He permits us to PRAY THROUGH HER to Him, is evidence of Christ’s love for His Blessed Mother.

With God it’s not about ego; not about protected turf; it’s about saving souls. Mary can and does play an active role, due to merits of Her Son, in this efort***.

Fair Lady, do you not pray for others? Do you not dissuade others from sinning? Do you not help others to know Christ especially when they ask you about Him?

When a Catholic says “My devotion to the Blessed Virgin saved me” he/she does not mean that the Blessed Virgin saves just like how Jesus saves us through His death and resurrection. Rather, the Blessed Virgin saves people because she prays for them and points them to her Son, saying, “Do whatever He tells you” (John 2:5).

 

[anthony022071]

This is true. Catholicism is Tradition based.

It is based upon both scripture and apostolic tradition. The conviction that the books of the Bible are divinely inspired is itself a part of apostolic tradition. Take away the authority of the Church in history and there would be no justification for believing that scripture is divinely inspired. It would be like pagan mythology to us. You inherited the belief in scripture and in Christ ultimately from the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

This is truly something when Catholics now claim that the theopneustos Word of God is subordinate to their church.

The Church was founded by Christ,and it is the author,upholder,and rightful interpreter of scripture. We belong to the Church,in which the Word of God lives,not to the dead letters of scripture.

 

[Dorothy]

How does Marian devotion save? It doesn’t. Not at all. I’m late in getting into this discussion and I haven’t read the whole thread, but it’s been interesting.

One question I would have is this - what deficiency could possibly be seen in the person and work of Jesus Christ that would cause one to look to Mary for any part of salvation?

There is absolutely NO DEFICIENCY in what Our Lord Jesus Christ has done for us. Jesus chose her, graced her in advance (Immaculate Conception,) loves her and gave her to us as she was at the foot of the Cross.

Peace and Blessings to you,

Dorothy

 

[anthony022071]

Proof?

The proof is the divine teaching authority of the Church. When you say that your doctrines are based upon scripture while ours are based upon tradition,you’re not scoring any points with us,because we don’t place scripture above the teachings of the Church itself. Scripture is not a higher or a more firm gound to stand upon than the teachings of the Church. Scripture has its authority on account of the Church. So while the question you always ask us is “Where is that in scripture?”,the question we may ask you is “Where is that in Church doctrine?”. You’re presuming for us that the teachings of the Church are doubtful and that scripture alone is the criteria for all doctrine.

 

[moondweller]

It is based upon both scripture and apostolic tradition. The conviction that the books of the Bible are divinely inspired is itself a part of apostolic tradition. Take away the authority of the Church in history and there would be no justification for believing that scripture is divinely inspired.

To the contrary, my friend, it’s the Scriptures themselves that state:2 Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired (theopneustos/ God-breathed) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"It’s God Himself who testifies of His Word by His Word. There is no greater authority than God Himself or His Word. It’s in This authority that men are to trust what is written. Not the word of mere men.

It would be like pagan mythology to us.

I’m sorry to hear that.

You inherited the belief in scripture and in Christ ultimately from the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

No! As you can see I got it straight from God’s written Word.

The Church was founded by Christ,and it is the author,upholder,and rightful interpreter of scripture.

Ah-huh. A church interprets nothing, men do.

We belong to the Church,in which the Word of God lives,not to the dead letters of scripture.

I’m so sorry to hear that you consider the letters of Scripture “dead.” Scripture itself states differently:**Heb 4:12 **"For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."Here again you have God Himself testifying in written form to the power of His Word. The written Word of God truly affects the spiritually regenerated. And I’ve also heard many testimonies of people who turned to Christ by faith and entered into eternal salvation after having simply read parts of the N.T. Scriptures. I’m so sorry to hear that to you apart from your church those “letters” are dead. I’m sure I probably can’t convince you that nothing could be further from the truth - according to God’s own Word.

 

[anthony022071]

To the contrary, my friend, it’s the Scriptures themselves that state:2 Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired (theopneustos/ God-breathed) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"It’s God Himself who testifies of His Word by His Word. There is no greater authority than God Himself or His Word. It’s in This authority that men are to trust what is written. Not the word of mere men.

Paul does not say that scripture is sufficient for all doctrine,only that is it inspired by God and profitable. Paul was referring to the Hebrew scriptures,which were canonized as sacred by the authority of the Jewish Church. As for the Christian scriptures,they were written by members of the one,universal (Catholic) Church,like Paul himself was,and they were canonized as sacred by the authority of the Catholic Church.

No! As you can see I got it straight from God’s written Word.

What would the Bible have meant to you if you had not already been surrounded by Christians who believed that it was the Word of God as a historical result of centuries of the Catholic Church’s influence over European cultures? Would you have been convinced it was really the Word of God?

 

[Lycorth]

Paul does not say that scripture is sufficient for all doctrine,only that is it inspired by God and profitable. Paul was referring to the Hebrew scriptures,which were canonized as sacred by the authority of the Jewish Church. As for the Christian scriptures,they were written by members of the one,universal (Catholic) Church,like Paul himself was,and they were canonized as sacred by the authority of the Catholic Church.

Well-said. “Profitable” does not mean or in any way imply “sole basis for doctrine or belief”. That is a man-made and heretical misinterpretation of Scripture.

What would the Bible have meant to you if you had not already been surrounded by Christians who believed that it was the Word of God as a historical result of centuries of the Catholic Church’s influence over European cultures? Would you have been convinced it was really the Word of God?

Well-said, again. Without the Church, acting in her role of preacher, we would not know that the Bible was of God or who God was, for that much. God ordained the Church, as Scripture records, and not until the year 382 were the Scriptures finally and definitively gathered together in a single, authoritative volume.

 

[Dorothy]

I don’t think I saw this particular Scripture in the previous posts.

“The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth” 1 Timothy 3:15

Jesus Christ is the Living Word.

The New Testament Scriptures weren’t available immediately, and when they were, they weren’t available to all the members of the Body of Christ.

Monks in Monasterys produced Sacred Scripture in calligraphy and art, they were called illuminated manuscripts.

Even when the printing press was invented, many, many years later, many people were illiterate.

Thankfully, Sacred Scripture is now available to most people in the world.

 

[moondweller]

Paul does not say that scripture is sufficient for all doctrine,only that is it inspired by God and profitable.

Paul explicitly states that all Scripture is theopneustos (God-breathed). This is NEVER said of man’s traditions or man’s extra-biblical doctrines. Only of the Scriptures is it said that they are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” IOW, the teachings of the churches must reflect that which is revealed in the theopneustos Scriptures. Men were not to introduce new doctrines. The doctrines for the church were completed with the last Book of the N.T. I’ve already discussed in previous posts what is not found in the Scriptures concerning Many.

As for the Christian scriptures,they were written by members of the one,universal (Catholic) Church,like Paul himself was,and they were canonized as sacred by the authority of the Catholic Church.

Prior to any councils, men knew which writings were N.T. Scripture. The early writers quoted from them profusely. It’s been said that one could put together almost the whole N.T. simply by the quotes found in those writings alone. It wasn’t the councils that made them Scripture, my friend; they were Scripture the moment they were penned. The councils merely ratified what was already recognized. But you’re sadly mistaken if you think this was a unilateral decision by your church.

Paul was referring to the Hebrew scriptures,which were canonized as sacred by the authority of the Jewish Church.

At the time of Paul (and Christ) there was no “official” canon based on some previous Jewish council. But the Jews very well knew which writings were Scripture (Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54, 56; Lk. 24:27, 32, 45; Jn. 5:39).

Please read 2 Tim. 3:16 again. It states there that ALL (that includes all of them, and excludes none) SCRIPTURE is theopneustos. That means both Old and New Testaments are God-breathed. Unless you’re trying to argue that the N.T. Books are not Scripture. Are you? Otherwise your response is nonsensical. Or are you perhaps postulating the eccentric idea that the Holy Spirit didn’t know that when He inspired 2 Tim. 3:16 to be written by Paul that He Himself didn’t know 2 Tim. 3:16 was His own inspired writing? Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit had to find this out later? That He Himself had to be informed that the N.T. was also Scripture?

As for the Christian scriptures,they were written by members of the one,universal (Catholic) Church,like Paul himself was,and they were canonized as sacred by the authority of the Catholic Church.

No “church” wrote Scripture. They were all written by individual men to and for the churches. Take for example Paul’s letter to the “churches” in Galatia. Galatia was a region with several churches. Like today, not all within those local assemblies (churches) were true believers, and therefore not a part of “the body of Christ,” which is “the church” (Eph. 1:22-23) “The church” Christ is building is always singular, never plural (that’s why it will be taken up as a single body). It is the true church which transcends the local churches (assemblies) which are made up of both believers and unbelievers (to whom many of the warnings in the N.T. are directed). In some instances, no believers at all. At the end of this church age the true church (the body/bride of Christ) will be taken up as a single unit (2 Tim. 2:19). First the dead in Christ will rise, then we who are alive (1 Thess. 4:15-18). What’s left behind on this present earth are apostate “churches” all occupied by apostates.

The N.T. Scriptures are always addressed to true believers within the churches (local assemblies), either to exhort them, warn them, or to inform them. For instance Paul wrote Romans “to all who are beloved in Rome, called as saints,”

What would the Bible have meant to you if you had not already been surrounded by Christians who believed that it was the Word of God as a historical result of centuries of the Catholic Church’s influence over European cultures? Would you have been convinced it was really the Word of God?

Would have I not read in the N. T. that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness?”

 

[moondweller]

It is based upon both scripture and apostolic tradition. The conviction that the books of the Bible are divinely inspired is itself a part of apostolic tradition.

Just as I said. Catholicism is not Scripture based but tradition based. Scripture being just a part of your Tradition.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Hi. I’ve seen Many sites and prayerbooks say things like “Mary is the salvation of those who invoke her”, or “Pure and immaculate Queen, save me, and deliver me from eternal damnation,” and that wearing the scapular and praying the rosary daily will “save the world.” But what I want to know is, what is the mechanism behind these claims? By what means does devotion to Mary save people? Devotion to and belief in Jesus has obvious means of salvation, but Mary, it’s a little more murky. Anyone know?

Good question. I’m a convert from Protestantism where the focus was more or less exclusively on Christ and the Bible. Even there I used to wonder how “Scripture saved” as far as that goes. It always seemed strange to me that quoting Scripture was supposed to be able to drive the devil away, despite the fact he is a very powerful spiritual creature. I mean sticks and stones may break my bones, but words…? This was particularly puzzling in view of the fact that I was assured by Scripture itself that the devil could quote Scripture. If he could quote Scripture himself, then why would my quoting Scripture have any real effect on him?

Now in the case of Mary, I don’t have much doubt there is a call to increased veneration. In the last couple of years in particular I’ve read a bit about Fatima, Lourdes and Akita in particular and I don’t have any doubt whatsoever she was sent by God and was and is giving a clarion call to the world. Even my old Protesant pastor commented to me. several years before I converted, that there’d been a “lot of them” (Marian apparitions) and that he thought they were a “judgement on a divided church”.

Mind you I’m also wary about non approved apparitions. I don’t have much doubt she does appear personally to some people. I once heard an ex-homosexual testify that Christ materialised in the room where he was about to commit suicide, move towards him and merge with him. If Christ appears to people from time to time in such a personal fashion, why not Mary. Yet that particular personal revelation will obviously never be listed as an approved apparition. But I believe him.

My Catholic psychiatrist, who, like me, is a Catholic by choice (he used to get visions of a forest of spears incidentally. He finally pinned it down in that his family was apparently heavily involved in the Reformation wars). He said it took him years to work out where Mary fitted into the scheme of things, and he believed her role was primarily as an intercessor for those in Purgatory.

So coming from a Protestant position, and therefore not born and bred into a Catholic way of thinking, I find it a bit difficult at times to work out just how devotion to Mary is supposed to be effective, since it is her Son who is the Real McCoy. To quote Bishop
Sheen in one of his texts, “without her divine Son she would be nothing”. And yet, for the reasons quoted above, I have no doubt God has been sending her with increasing urgency, particularly over the last couple of centuries. In fact, I think she’s the “portent in the heavens” in Revelation Chapter 12.

So then. how do the Rosary, the Hail Mary, the Holy Queen etc. work?

From an ex-Protestant.

 

[moondweller]

I don’t think I saw this particular Scripture in the previous posts.

“The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth” 1 Timothy 3:15

“Pillars” and “foundations” are supports. The church is to support “the truth” (tês alêtheias). It, itself, is not an infallible truth. It is not, itself, “the truth.”

 

[LilyM]

“Pillars” and “foundations” are supports. The church is to support “the truth” (tês alêtheias). It, itself, is not an infallible truth. It is not, itself, “the truth.”

I’ve also seen the word translated ‘bulwark’ - meaning defence.

In any event, Christ doesn’t build His truth on an erring, weak or fallible support or foundation. He builds on rock rather than sand, as His parable teaches us.

The Church, being that support or foundation, is a support and foundation forged of rock rather than sand. Impregnable and secure. The gates of Hell will not prevail against it, remember?

 

[nuntym]

+AJPM+

Prior to any councils, men knew which writings were N.T. Scripture. The early writers quoted from them profusely. It’s been said that one could put together almost the whole N.T. simply by the quotes found in those writings alone. It wasn’t the councils that made them Scripture, my friend; they were Scripture the moment they were penned. The councils merely ratified what was already recognized.

Thank you, moondweller, for acknowledging the fact that it was Tradition which identified and ratified the canon of Scriptures.

But you’re sadly mistaken if you think this was a unilateral decision by your church.

Ah, is this a historical fact? Can you please cite your sources?

 

[nuntym]

+AJPM+

snip

So then. how do the Rosary, the Hail Mary, the Holy Queen etc. work?

From an ex-Protestant.

As they say, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”

Try them, or at least one. Even if just one Hail Mary daily, meditating on each statement of the prayer, for one week.

 

[elts1956]

It is very dangerous to say “No Mary, no Jesus,” “Know Mary, know Jesus.” Of course Mary was the mother of Jesus, actually, Marian was the mother of Jesus. She was not born without sin - the church gave her the position in heaven in 1952, but God never did.

Uh, when did you last talk to God face to face? So God didn’t assume his Mother into heaven, there is no such thing as The Immaculate Conception?? Another catholic not believing Church teaching? The assumption of Mother Mary is one of the infallible doctrines of the Church. Disbelieve it at your own risk.

No person has been received into heaven at this stage - the 1st/2nd resurrection, then, we will join with all those that have gone to the grave. The dead remain dead at this stage.
(John 3:13)

Catholic Church would be a great asset to the religious community - I have seen the most amazing Adoration and Praise for Our Lord JESUS. However, we must never supersede Mary over Jesus. And the Church needs to come back pre-Augustine to truly be following the Church of God.

I welcome any comments on that that I have written. I became a CHRISTIAN Catholic overa a year ago, but struggle with things that are contrary to the Word of God.

God bless You all

 

[elts1956]

It is very dangerous to say “No Mary, no Jesus,” “Know Mary, know Jesus.” Of course Mary was the mother of Jesus, actually, Marian was the mother of Jesus. She was not born without sin - the church gave her the position in heaven in 1952, but God never did.
No person has been received into heaven at this stage - the 1st/2nd resurrection, then, we will join with all those that have gone to the grave. The dead remain dead at this stage.
(John 3:13)

Catholic Church would be a great asset to the religious community - I have seen the most amazing Adoration and Praise for Our Lord JESUS. However, we must never supersede Mary over Jesus. And the Church needs to come back pre-Augustine to truly be following the Church of God.

I welcome any comments on that that I have written. I became a CHRISTIAN Catholic overa a year ago, but struggle with things that are contrary to the Word of God.

God bless You all

Wow…wait a minute…you’re saying that if Mary said “no” then Jesus would not have become incarnate, suffered, died, rose, and ascended to glory? Mary…a human…had the ability to thwart God’s plan?

Say more, please!

As usual, you are putting your words into someone elses mouth. Is your sole purpose on Earth to come to CAF and confuse those who seek the truth?

 

[elts1956]

But he was less inspired than the Church.

What does this have to do with what the Church teaches about devotion to Mother Mary?